[POLITICS] Iraq war inquiry

Discussion in 'Off Topic Area' started by Southpaw535, Jun 15, 2009.

  1. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    It wasn't meant as an insult or an attempt to destroy your credibility - you're an anonymous voice on the internet - you dont have any credibility.

    I'm not sure I'm arguing against Butlers findings, but the idea that Blair just lied his ass off so he could go fight a war that was only ever going to destroy him. I am willing to accept a lot of alternative answers - dodgy American intel, a message from God, blackmail, sure all possible, but a smart, politically savvy Prime minister deciding to pull a fast one knowing full well that he would be caught with his pants down - nope, not buying it.
     
  2. BigBoss

    BigBoss This is me, seriously.

    Sorry I know I said I was gonna bow out, but I really could help myself with this one. What excatly were the links between the 9/11 bombing and Iraq!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!
     
  3. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    No one (apart from Bush) ever thought there was a link between Iraq and Al Qaeda. The July bombings were a direct result of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and were somewhat inevitable.
     
  4. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Oh right. Think I'll keep my opinions to myself from now on.
     
  5. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    There was no link between the bombing itself and Iraq, none whatsoever, but the continuing animosity against Iraq which stemmed from '91 coupled with the war on terror 'get out of jail free' card that Bush got as a result of 9/11 made Iraq the obvious next target on his hit list.
     
  6. holyheadjch

    holyheadjch Valued Member

    My reply wasn't meant to be a rebuke, apologies if it came across that way.
     
  7. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    I know mate :cool:
    I agree with you on most of your comments just throwing other ideas out there
     
  8. Dhalsim-on

    Dhalsim-on Banned Banned

    Last edited: Jun 27, 2009
  9. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    Of course!!!! How could I have been so foolish? It was america tying to take over the world as usual :bang:
     
  10. Dhalsim-on

    Dhalsim-on Banned Banned

    No, america will fall and merge into a global system. Anyone who thinks the US is going to rule the world through some kind of Pax Americana needs to learn some basic economics.
     
  11. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

  12. Topher

    Topher allo!

    This is irrelevant and nothing more than an emotional red herring. What matters is intent. Bush and Blair did not intend for innocent people to die, however everyone understands that in war innocent people do die. Unless it could be demonstrated that Bush and Blair engaged in war with malice or without regard for innocent civilian life, then you may have a case, otherwise, all that matter is the reasons for going to war, and whether they were justified...

    Were the arguments justified? Was the intelligence credible? Was there any suggestion that Saddam had capabilities to attack? Was that claim just used to hide the desire to remove Saddam's regime? Did they fully understand implications of a war? Etc etc.

    I happen to think the world, and especially Iraq would be far better without a tyrant like Saddam and his crime family however you cannot just turn up in Iraq and expect to start a democracy; there needs to be certain social and political things in place first. If anything my problem is the way they went about it, not the fact that they removed Saddam and his regime.

    Oh and let's not forget that Saddam was in breach of a UN Resolution which stated that if in breach the original resolution which sanctioned military action (the Gulf War) to be reactived. Despite all the problems with the war, Saddam was not innocent.

    Okay so what were the UKs economic and political interests that required a war with Iraq in order for them to be protected?

    If Blair did not not believe Saddam was a danger then there MUST be some other reason why Blair decided to go to war; he is far to smart to launch a war without any justifiable reason to do so.
     
  13. Dhalsim-on

    Dhalsim-on Banned Banned

    Who sold Saddam his WMD's?

    We all know the answer... don't we?

    Quite frankly topher, that post was as realistic and factually grounded as...

    [​IMG]

    1,000,000 innocent people killed by sanctions and another 700,000 due to invasion is not "an emotional red herring". Claiming those publicly responsible for lying their countries into pre-emptive war had "good intentions" is so laughably stupid that it brings about one of those moments where you worry for the future of our species. Though anyone who calls indignation at mass murder "an emotional red herring" probably isn't human in the true sense anyway!
     
  14. Dhalsim-on

    Dhalsim-on Banned Banned

    Good post. :cool:

    Well, that is legally speaking what a conspiracy would be, a criminal act that you plan, enact and benefit from. Technically speaking every corporation conspires to maximize profits etc. It's psycholinguistics in action when people say "oooh conspiracy", they have a false perception of the very word itself. I always thought agenda was a more accurate description though, as so-called conspiracies are merely symptoms of an overall agenda.

    The real problem is that generations have been raised to falsely believe that power does not plan... which is of course, an absurdity. A large business will plan decades in advance, especially if based in the resource sector. The maintenance of power is no different. This agenda is written about, it is planned and for the millionth time I recommend reading "The Next Million Years" by Charles Galton Darwin and "UNESCO It's Purpose and Philosophy" by Julian Huxley.

    The way I see it, I practice martial arts for a variety of reasons not least as a means of increasing the survival ability of myself and those around me, knowledge of the power structures that surround us all should be viewed in exactly the same way. That's only rational.
     
  15. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    Dalsim-on:

    Real people died in this. I've had enough of your ten-a-penny bloody conspiracy theories anyway, and this is certainly not the time for them. If it wasn't for the MAP policy on swearing- and personal attacks- that's NOT all I'd say to you either.
     
  16. Dhalsim-on

    Dhalsim-on Banned Banned

    How ironic... Earlier in the thread I was banned for a few days for posting pictures of dead Iraqi children. I'd also point out that deriding me as a "conspiracy theorist" for having a remotely informed opinion IS a personal attack.

    I offered evidence in the form of easily obtainable books/pdfs... you offer... tired old cliches. Not to mention you begin by insinuating that knowledge of power structures is somehow insulting to those who were murdered in Iraq, quite perplexing overall.
     
    Last edited: Jun 29, 2009
  17. Knight_Errant

    Knight_Errant Banned Banned

    I'm not having an argument with you either. Get a grip.
     
  18. Southpaw535

    Southpaw535 Well-Known Member Moderator Supporter

    As far as I'm concerned though mate you havn't done anything to prove you're not a conspiracy theorist. Any political thread I've seen you post on you've always given very scant evidence of some hidden government plot and other such things. And I'm not being funny mate but your "evidence" generally links to some half arsed website making "proof" out of a couple of lines of evidence.
    One other point I'd like to make is you complained about all the innocents who died. I've asked before and was strangely ignored but can you find me a scrap of intelligible evidence that shows blair/bush or whoever told the forces to deliberately go around shooting civies? And secondly how many of those were a direct result of the forces there? I'm going to take a guess that quite a few of them were victims of suicide attacks which frankly the troops can't do a huge amount about.
     
  19. Topher

    Topher allo!

    Yes, it is just a red herring. How many people died has NOTHING to do with the justification, reasoning and intent of going to war. Even if Bush and Blair wanted to go in just for oil (something which I don't for a second think is true), or just to overthrow Saddam's regime, the deaths would still be irrelevant. The only thing that would make the deaths a relevant point is if it could be demonstrated that Bush and Blair intentionally set out to kill innocent people.

    Examine and criticse the reasoning and intent for going into Iraq all you want because the validity and justification for the war rests there, not on how many people were unintentionally killed.

    To illustrate the point: if, hypothetically, Saddam had a nuclear bomb and was prepared to use it, and the subsequent war causes 700,000 deaths, would you still be making the same argument? Most people would say an Iraq war in that circumstance would be valid, irrespective of the deaths of innocent people, yet the argument you are trying to present would require you to denounce an invasion against a nuclear Iraq on the ground that 700,000 civilians were killed.

    Who lied? And let not bring up the claim the Saddam had WMDs since that would only be a lie if Bush, Blair and all others who agreed would have to have known that claim was false and nevertheless continued to make it. I'd like to see your evidence of that, if of course that is the 'lie' you're referring to.

    Can you tell me what the deaths of people have to do with the justification, reasoning and intent of the war? Furthermore, can you explain how collateral damage or accidental death qualified as "mass-murder." The deaths of innocent civilians in Iraq would only be murder if they were killed with intent and malice.
     

Share This Page